Glossary · Online Platforms

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

By Steve Levine · Updated July 13, 2026 · 7 min read

Quick Answer

Section 230 is a 1996 U.S. federal law (47 U.S.C. § 230) that says an online service is not treated as the publisher of content posted by its users, and that protects a service when it removes or moderates content in good faith. The person who created the content can still be held responsible for it. The law has specific exceptions and does not cover content a service creates itself.

On this page

What Section 230 Says

Section 230 is part of the Communications Decency Act, which Congress enacted as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230.

The central provision, § 230(c)(1), states: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

A second provision, § 230(c)(2), is often called the "Good Samaritan" clause. It addresses moderation, providing that a service is not liable for restricting access to or removing material it considers objectionable, when it acts in good faith.

How It Works

The law uses two defined terms. An "interactive computer service" is broadly understood to include websites, apps, social networks, internet service providers, and similar online services. An "information content provider" is whoever is responsible for creating or developing the content.

Under § 230(c)(1), when content is created by one party (for example, a user) and hosted by another (for example, a platform), the hosting service is generally not treated as the publisher of that content. Responsibility for the content rests with the party that created it.

If a service creates or materially develops content itself, it is acting as an information content provider for that material, and Section 230 does not treat that content as someone else's.

What Section 230 Does Not Cover

The statute lists several areas it does not affect:

Section 230 in Recent Cases

Courts have applied Section 230 since shortly after it was enacted. An early appeals court decision, Zeran v. America Online (1997), read the provision broadly. In Gonzalez v. Google (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court had the opportunity to address the scope of Section 230 but resolved the case without deciding that question.

A recurring issue in current litigation is the distinction between a claim about user-posted content and a claim about a service's own design or conduct. Several recent cases tracked on OCA involve that distinction:

The largest cluster of these matters is the Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation (MDL 3047 in the Northern District of California, coordinated with California's JCCP 5255), where families allege the platforms' engagement-maximizing designs — not any single user post — harmed minors. The platforms have raised Section 230 as a defense, while plaintiffs argue their design-defect claims fall outside it. OCA tracks the platform-specific suits:

Recent rulings and settlements from the same litigation:

Whether Section 230 applies in any of these matters is decided by the courts based on the specific claims and facts.

Current Status

Section 230 remains in effect. It has been the subject of ongoing debate, proposed legislation, and litigation. In 2025, federal officials at agencies including the Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, and Federal Communications Commission indicated interest in changing how the law is applied, and various bills to amend it have been introduced in Congress. As of mid-2026, the statute has not been repealed, and the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to use recent cases to narrow it.

This page is a plain-English reference and is not legal advice. How Section 230 applies to any particular situation depends on the facts and the court.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Section 230 in simple terms?

Section 230 is a 1996 U.S. federal law that says an online service is not treated as the publisher of content posted by its users. It also protects a service when it removes or moderates content in good faith. The user who created the content can still be held responsible for it.

What law is Section 230 part of?

Section 230 is part of the Communications Decency Act, which Congress enacted as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230.

What does Section 230 not cover?

It does not apply to federal criminal law, intellectual property claims, certain privacy laws, or sex-trafficking claims under the 2018 FOSTA-SESTA amendment. It also does not cover content a service creates itself.

Is Section 230 the same as the First Amendment?

No. The First Amendment limits government action on speech. Section 230 is a separate federal statute that addresses when private online services can be held liable in civil court. As a statute, it can be amended or repealed by Congress.

Does Section 230 protect social media companies from addiction lawsuits?

Not necessarily. Section 230 shields a platform from being treated as the publisher of content its users post. In the social media addiction litigation (MDL 3047), plaintiffs argue their claims target the platforms' own design features, such as engagement-maximizing algorithms, rather than specific user posts. In 2024, the court allowed several of those design-based claims to proceed, holding they were not barred by Section 230. Whether the defense applies still depends on the specific claim and facts.

Can you sue a website for what its users post?

Generally, Section 230 prevents an interactive computer service from being held liable as the publisher of content created by its users; responsibility rests with the user who created it. A claim can still proceed against the service for content it creates or materially develops itself, or under one of the statute's exceptions, such as federal criminal law or intellectual property.

What is FOSTA-SESTA?

FOSTA-SESTA is a 2018 amendment, the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act, that created an exception to Section 230 for certain sex-trafficking claims. It is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(5).

Sources

More on Section 230 & Platform Liability Cases

More Class Actions

$68M Google Assistant Privacy Settlement
No Proof Privacy

$68M Google Assistant Privacy Settlement

Pro rata share of a $68M fund (no proof) · Google Home, Nest & Pixel buyers + Assistant users
$59.5M Flo Period Tracker Privacy Settlement
No Proof Privacy

$59.5M Flo Period Tracker Privacy Settlement

Pro rata cash (no proof) · U.S. Flo users who logged data Nov 2016 – Feb 2019
Google Play Children's Privacy Settlement
No Proof Privacy

Google Play Children's Privacy Settlement

$8.25M · Estimated $40–$200 cash (no proof) · U.S. kids under 13 who used Google Play apps
FitOn $10 Video Privacy Settlement
Notice / PIN Privacy

FitOn $10 Video Privacy Settlement

$10 cash · U.S. FitOn account holders who watched a video Oct 2022 – May 2026
Disney $50M YouTube TV & DirecTV Antitrust Settlement
Notice / PIN Antitrust

Disney $50M YouTube TV & DirecTV Antitrust Settlement

Pro rata cash by subscription length · YouTube TV & DirecTV Stream subscribers (Apr 2019 – Mar 2026)